It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

page: 4
24
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:11 PM

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hear where you are coming from.

I wish more people would keep an open mind until something is proved.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:36 PM
My theory explains why it would happen in space. You can't see this in terms of classical aerodynamics.

If you spin an object it will follow newton's first law in that it will continue to travel in the direction it is spun ad infinitum in a pure vacuums without the affects of gravity.

While the above example is an ideal philosophy it is in fact impossible to do perfectly but certainly a gyro in space will spin much further than on earth.

However, because there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, and indeed, any vacuum on earth is subject to gravity, this is less about measurable air molecules and best seen in relational pressures.

As such, applying a force such as spinning an object in a vacuum will enact a force that competes not with the air molecules per se but with the actual pressurized system.

you will need a greater force to spin such an object because it now competes with the pressure as soon as it is spun.

This occurs because the agitated molecules within the object that is being spun will create pressure away from the epicenter of the rotational force and thus create a force against it's surrounding environment.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in this sense the force that reacts against this will create a pressure towards the rotating body, between its surface (and depending on the mass and force of spin and the outer environment), t's stratosphere. This in turn has a relational quality with the environment outside iit's stratosphere (using the linguistic-al derivation [French stratosphère : Latin strtus, a spreading out; see stratus + -sphère, sphere (from Old French espere; see sphere).]
).

This is why gravity changes in strength towards the poles and why water down a drain spins in opposite directions north and south of the equator. it also explains the earth shape. It also explains the relationship between gravitational fields (such as the sun, moon and earth) and their influence on each other (such as tides)

So in effect, the experiment mentioned in this thread would actually get stronger results in a vacuum but you would need to enact a lot more force on the object.

In that respect it is no more antigravity than an airplane is.

The problem with the current theory of gravity (last time i checked anyway) is the belief that gravity is created by mass and mass alone. It does not entertain the relationship between centripetal forces and gravity in a more universal theory.

It is there that is a problem that leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The laws of physics still remain strong.

Jason Sinclair
Balmain Sydney

[edit on 23-2-2009 by spacial]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by spacial

This is why gravity changes in strength towards the poles and why water down a drain spins in opposite directions north and south of the equator.

Earth's gravity varies slightly at different points of its surface but it has nothing to do with the latitude.
www.space.com...

Water going down a drain is not affected by the Coriolis effect but much larger scaled rotational phenomena are. The Coriolis effect is caused by the Earth's rotation but has nothing to do with gravity.
abyss.uoregon.edu...

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:51 PM
Yes i know all that but i disagree with those hypothesis...

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:12 PM
It seems to me that what is happening is the same thing that happens in a rifled barrel or a smooth barrel of a gun. A rifled barrel has grooves sort of like a candy cane on the inside which makes the projectile spin as it leaves the bore. In affect causing the projectile to travel straighter and futher befor coming under the effects of gravity to make it fall. A smooth bore doesn't rotate the project and it doesn't stay on a true path and the upward path falls quicker.
But on the same not a bullet fired parallel to the ground will hit the ground at the same time as the casing ejected just a lot futher away. Gravitys effect is the same on both.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by spacial

Earth's gravity varies slightly at different points of its surface but it has nothing to do with the latitude.
www.space.com...

The GRACE program supports my theory. Gravity does in fact increase towards the equator over all according to their site and by looking at the gravity maps.. Other factors, more importantly oceans, have greater gravitational strength because they exert more outward force because water is more pliable and can congregate easier .

www.csr.utexas.edu...

I would also predict that the gravity maps will change because of the influence of the moon and suns fields. We have to wait until the next lot of data is released or when the european data comes in and compare but if in fact that is correct i would hope people would at least consider what i am saying.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:30 PM

The moon effects high tide and low tide by pulling water to it with its gravity , and is strongest when on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by JBA2848

The moon effects high tide and low tide by pulling water to it with its gravity , and is strongest when on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.

yes...

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:29 PM

I disagree that the gravity map show any general increase in gravity based on latitude or ocean areas.

The northern latitudes seem to show just as much area showing increased gravity as reduced. The same applies to southern latitudes.

If anything, the trend for the ocean basins seems to be more of an average or reduced level than increased. Look at the Indian Ocean, the Western Atlantic, the majority of the Pacific, and Southern Ocean between Australia and South America.
a52.g.akamaitech.net...

In regard to the OP, there doesn't seem to be any published work or repetition of the experiment showing any validation. Not surprising since De Palma used his arm to launch the spinning balls. Very tightly controlled experiment there. I suppose there's no chance that different launch velocities (speed and direction) had any thing to do with the "results".

A lack of controlled experiments with repeatable results seems to be a common problem with demonstrations of gravity control but that doesn't stop people from touting them.

[edit on 2/23/2009 by Phage]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by JBA2848

The moon effects high tide and low tide by pulling water to it with its gravity , and is strongest when on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.

The sun has a small effect on the tides and tides are higher (and lower) when the Sun, Earth, and Moon are in a line. But the effect is the same whether the Moon is on the same side of the Earth as the Sun (new Moon) or on the opposite side (full Moon).
home.hiwaay.net...

[edit on 2/23/2009 by Phage]

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by rich23
You haven't read all of the links. Go back, do that, and maybe you'll be able to contribute something to the discussion that hasn't already been said and rejected.

Yeah. I saw links to Hoagland's Enterprise Mission, and absolutely ridiculous and sensationalist fake physics site that I cannot take seriously due to its hilarious and pathetically extravagant history. I failed to find a reliable alternative in my five second Google search, so I need your help.

Originally posted by rich23
Have you done any of the experiments yourself?

I don't have access to a vacuum. I can't see them letting me near one right now.

Originally posted by rich23
If your maths is really that good, why don't you do that: look at the photo, do the calculations I suggested earlier in the thread, from which you can deduce the size and therefore approximate mass of the ball bearings, and see if there's a non-negligible divergence that accounts for the difference in trajectories?

My "maths"? I just need to get suitable aerodynamic formulae and apply them. But I don't have time right now.

Originally posted by rich23
Then you'd be contributing something to the thread, rather than not reading what's been posted and just interposing your own prejudices on the matter.

Waaaah!

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:54 AM

"A lack of controlled experiments with repeatable results seems to be a common problem with demonstrations of gravity control but that doesn't stop people from touting them."

Especially NASA:

"Last year, NASA decided to try again, this time by contracting out the construction of the device. Superconductive Components is in communication with Podkletnov as they attempt to build it, Koczor said.

The project is on or ahead of schedule, said J.R. Gaines, vice president of Superconductive Components.

"The superconductor is built. The rest has been designed and fabrication is proceeding," Gaines said. However, he said, he can't offer an opinion on whether the device will actually work. The company's job is simply to build it to the assigned specifications.

"We don't necessarily have a technical opinion," he said, though "we would certainly love to see this work."

*NASA has done far more than just 'tout' ;-)

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:59 AM

tout:advertize in strongly positive terms; "This product was touted as a revolutionary invention"

It's expected that links be provided for external quotes. Since you didn't I will:

"We don't necessarily have a technical opinion," he said, though "we would certainly love to see this work."

www.space.com...

Doesn't seem they've been able to replicate any results from the original experiment in the past 8-1/2 years since that article was published (nor been touting anything). They gave it a shot, it doesn't seem to have worked. Not the first attempt. Apparently others have unsuccessfully tried to duplicate Podkletnov's experiment.

[edit on 2/24/2009 by Phage]

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:25 AM

Are you saying that NASA embezzled money and committed fraud by using Tax Payers dollars on an experiment that you have stated will never & could never work?

Surely, the brains at NASA are 'smarter' than Phage...

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Phage

I disagree that the gravity map show any general increase in gravity based on latitude or ocean areas.

The northern latitudes seem to show just as much area showing increased gravity as reduced. The same applies to southern latitudes.

If anything, the trend for the ocean basins seems to be more of an average or reduced level than increased. Look at the Indian Ocean, the Western Atlantic, the majority of the Pacific, and Southern Ocean between Australia and South America.
a52.g.akamaitech.net...

[edit on 2/23/2009 by Phage]

Yes, correct but if you swing a pale of water around it will swish in certain areas would it not? My point is not to what you are referring but to but that gravitational forces are greater in ocean areas but you rightly pointed out were over all balanced or should we say unbalanced? land areas are more uniformed. Greatest percentages in water of high levels are in the equatorial region with less but by no means less significant in polar regions.

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Bruce De Palma Published his findings years ago.

The same debunking methods you are using didn't work then when we peer-reviewed his work.

I suggest you spend more time reading his conclusions and less time trying to debunk reality.

You did bother read De Palma's Paper didn't you?
(Surely you are not relying on the OP...)

Don't you think you're being just a wee bit defensive?

I'm just asking for the data behind the questionable graph.

How about addressing the issue? Point me to (with link) the ACTUAL DATA that was used to create that graph.

What's the initial angle of elevation for each ball?
What's the initial speed for each ball?

Short of that information, that graph is just eye candy, and not very good candy at that. Like I mentioned, before, if the points of origin or initiation for both parabolas were actually aligned, the difference in trajectories could easily be explained by a difference in initial velocity, much like in this illustration:

Me, a debunker? Not really that complicated. Just a fact checker.

If someone is going to make a claim that there is some "unanswered" questions in physics and uses some generic graph showing a couple of trajectories that differ from one another, and claim the difference is only due to "spin", well fine.

Instead of getting defensive when someone states the obvious flaws in said graph and simply asks for more information, you should take that opportunity to point that person to the data. If you don't have it, it's not necessary to attack the person asking the simple question.

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:36 AM

In regard to the OP, there doesn't seem to be any published work or repetition of the experiment showing any validation. Not surprising since De Palma used his arm to launch the spinning balls. Very tightly controlled experiment there. I suppose there's no chance that different launch velocities (speed and direction) had any thing to do with the "results".

A lack of controlled experiments with repeatable results seems to be a common problem with demonstrations of gravity control but that doesn't stop people from touting them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess it should be no surprise that people using pseudoscientific terms like "torsion fields" are the same people who seem to have absolutely no basic understanding of what the scientific method entails (controls, measurements, data, etc.).

Fancy sounding words seems to be evidence enough for them.

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:29 AM

More fancy graphics. Gosh, you've been to a lot of trouble.

Last time you distorted the data by removing crucial elements that showed that the two ball bearings were falling at different rates.

Now you're introducing the idea that the ball bearings have different initial velocities.

If you can explain how this can occur when the same initial upward force is applied to both balls, I'd be really interested.

Until then, it looks to me like an intellectually dishonest way of approaching the subject.

If every time you contribute to the thread you have to remove some of the data or introduce a distortion, what does that say for your objectivity?

Have you attempted to replicate the experiment yourself? No. And on the basis of what you've posted so far, I wouldn't trust you to.

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:34 AM

The ball-bearing experiment could have been performed under more controlled conditions. Nor did De Palma provide us with all the necessary design specification required for most of us to replicate the experiment. That he did not do this has opened the door to 'fact-checkers' such as yourself - who incessantly point this out for all to see, but negate to mention that this is not expected or required...

*At the time of his Paper being published, His Peers did not mention this either - but they were just Physicists, not 'fact-checkers' from ATS.

In any case, I am more interested in the flywheel experiment as it can be replicated in most North American machine shops - And like De Palma, I will assume that you know how to create the conditions where the described anomaly will be present ;-)

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah. I saw links to Hoagland's Enterprise Mission, and absolutely ridiculous and sensationalist fake physics site that I cannot take seriously due to its hilarious and pathetically extravagant history. I failed to find a reliable alternative in my five second Google search, so I need your help.

Sorry. Not here to help lazy people.

I've offered a way, using the available data, for you to contribute to the thread. But because you

... don't have the time right now...

...you'd rather clutter the thread with a post that obeys the simple rule that emoticons appear in inverse proportion to intellectual content. Well done!

top topics

24